This isn’t what you said. You said, “Not sure how he’d pay for its day-to-day operations though.” Obviously, it would be paid for out of existing State Department funding.
Congress potentially passing legislation to bar such use of that money is a different topic. And unlikely, to boot. Many Republicans are just as tired of the embargo as many Democrats.
Another problem is that the President can’t get an ambassador approved.
Also, at least according to CBS, in order to do anything beyond what the interest section does now, it would take new money from Congress. Plus they’ve got at least one Democrat:
Menendez has only just noticed that he does this?
On the good side, I’m gratified that the President realizes that he can’t repeal the trade embargo by executive order. Of course, he might pull a “prosecutorial discretion” and not stop companies from doing business with Cuba, which would pretty much once and for all establish us as a banana republic.
Why would the Republicans not go along with this, considering the polling about Cuba is pretty overwhelming? Why keep the same policy that’s done nothing but hurt the Cuban people for 50 years?
adaher, I don’t think you know what that term, “banana republic,” means.
When a President can just ignore duly enacted laws, what you have is a strongman.
Some Republicans, like Paul, already seem to be agreeing with the new Cuba policy.
The more libertarian-oriented ones have always opposed trade embargoes as a matter of principle.
FWIW, Rubio is priced at 7-1 to win the GOP nomination at a major British gambling market, behind only JEB who is the 3-1 favorite. Rand Paul is a close 3rd, followed by Romney and Walker. Ted Cruz is in 6th place at 19-1.
The same site has Clinton at 4-9, and Elizabeth Warren at 8-1 to be the Demo nominee. Biden is a distant 3rd at about 22-1; Gillibrand is 4th at 40-1.
Who says he’s not? I hear him listed with every mention of possible GOP candidates along with Cruz, Paul and Christie.
The short answer is that he is the epitome of dweebness. In more detail, his anti-Cuba schtick may have worked two decades ago, but not now. I’m not seeing what he brings to the table that others don’t have more of. He isn’t particularly articulate, he doesn’t seem that bright, he just sells Republican orthodoxy with a young Latin face.
This still isn’t what you said. You said, “Not sure how he’d pay for its day-to-day operations though.”
Now you’re bringing up “another problem”, as though your first problem hasn’t been shown to be wrong.
Now you seem to be pinning your hopes on Congress specifically limiting State Department funding for a U.S. embassy in Cuba, and on Congress refusing to confirm an ambassador to Cuba. Neither of these seem to me to be likely; all you have to do to tell that is to look at how many Republican Senators are reacting to this: many of them do not care.
Many Democratic Representatives, many Republican Representatives, many Democratic Senators, many Republican Senators, and many of the constituents of all these members of Congress are reacting to this action with a general, “Meh. I guess it’s about time. Fuck it.” I see no chance for negative action on this from Congress.
Certainly, for a full economic relationship, as opposed to a full diplomatic relationship, Congress must take affirmative action, and do some repealing. Since the President is authorized to allow certain exemptions to the economic laws, I would expect relatively quick action on this, so that the Republicans can stop what would be effectively monopolistic trade by people and companies favored by the President.
A. This isn’t for Fidel :rolleyes: and B. It would be your guys causing the shutdown. But I think you know that, don’t you?
And whose fault would that be, hmm? :dubious:
John “Bomb, bomb Iran” McCain has sufficient foreign policy judgment to be President? Really? 
If you demand a record of experience and accomplishment getting things done, that rules out your entire party, doesn’t it?
You continue to amaze.
Fifty plus years is “all of a sudden”? :dubious:
He, like most presidents since early on, is not ignoring laws; he’s acting on advice of legal counsel, who interprets to what extent the President can act within those laws. His actions may be challenged in the courts as to whether they are contrary to the intent of the law, but for now he’s operating on firm ground. I would agree that it can be seen as bully tactics, but it’s generally designed (as has been said by the President) to get Congress to actually do its job.
Plus, of course, for a long time and probably even now, a lot of the wealthy Cubans who have called for the embargo so single-mindedly are old Batista cronies. Some of whom came to the US and set up farms in south Florida where migrant workers were enslaved. And I’m not using the term “enslaved” casually.
Real classy bunch, those old-line Cubans.
As a “joke” this failed and it is offensive.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating]
Whoa, there…
…may I point out nowhere in your linked article did it identify the ethnicity of the convicted abusive employers – but in this report it indicates they were Mexican (and not that old). And there is no indication in either report of the ethnicity of the landowners of the farms where the migrants were sent, but around Naples it’s probably as likely Cubans as Anglos as corporate farms.
Just wanting to be fair. There are tons of sound reasons to disregard the pressure from the Miami Old Guard, and why that Miami Old Guard rubs much of the other Hispanic electorate and some of their own younger generation the wrong way.
I wrote in a separate thread on the normalization issue:
Revolutions become succesful when enough of the educated and middle classes at the very least stop supporting the Ancien Régime; but ironically these ended up in the same boat (maybe literally) as the Batista cronies, becoming with time all of them alike hardened bitter old men to whom everything and anything different is a communist conspiracy.
If the President decided not to take action against companies violating the embargo, then that would establish a precedent that Presidents don’t have to enforce any laws they don’t want to. They don’t even have to doubt their constitutionality. They simply have to disagree with the law from a policy perspective, and poof! it’s as if it doesn’t even exist.
Well OK, here’s a storyabout Bastista cronies who came to America, set up sugar plantations, enslaved workers, and wielded enormous political power. Whaddya know. I never said they were the only ones doing it.